If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I hope not, because I really do think Frank is a solid young coach. Believe it or not, losing Danny Granger was a massive stomach punch to those guys. I talked to both Paul George and Roy Hibbert last weekend about how everyone took the news and they were devastated just talking about it. George even went on to admit that they’re having a hard time adjusting offensively when that big an offensive presence just no longer is part of the team. I think that injury shell-shocked them a bit, and I think they’re a young team feeling the pressure of high expectations. It’s a long season, and they’re going to get better. There are some very good players here, after all. But I’m not selling Vogel yet. He’s a smart guy, and I’m anxious to see how he gets his boys out of their funk.

ballhog

All this Paul George breakout seemed a little premature to me. Now with Granger out all those people begging to trade him to give George the SF spot must be kicking them selves. He looks awful in a feature role.

Joel Brigham

He hasn’t looked awful, but he hasn’t looked as immediately amazing as we all thought he’d be. I think he’s working at it, and I feel confident he’ll figure out how to explode onto the scene sometime in the not-too-distant future. We’ve seen a flashes of it this season, but it’d be nicer to see him be more officient offensively. Great kid, though, and really hoping he does well.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 90'sNBARocked For This Useful Post:

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

Danny is not an excuse for the pisss poor coaching and the execution of their offense. For Hibbert to constantly get pushed off the block by one of the lightest centers in the league is inexcusable. Danny has nothing to do with this. Hibbert has done this with Danny in the game. It is the coaches job to get his guys in the best positions to Excel. This should not take 9 + games to happen with a starting line up that has been coached by the same coach for what, a 100 games. Come on Man!

Jerry Sloan, SVG... Hell I'd settle for Mike Brown.

Last edited by Pacer Fan; 11-15-2012 at 09:57 PM.

.

Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pacer Fan For This Useful Post:

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I agree. Granger wouldn't solve any of the poor drive and dish offense because that's not his skill. And last year Danny spent the first month or so shooting absolutely terrible and the team still won games with a road loaded schedule.

Granger is not Derrick Rose, and the Pacers aren't playing as well as the Bulls did/are without Rose.

I thought maybe his 3pt threat was part of it, but the last few games the major problem looks like terrible plays. And now the team is folding because you can see the defense starting to dip and make mistakes. I worry that this wagon might be building momentum and headed out of control, and if it does then 100% Vogel is in trouble. He's on the hot seat because of current trajectory. He's not dumped because it's early and you never know, but to avoid being removed he's got to get something sorted out and get the QUALITY OF PLAY up.

Maybe he can get them to 6-3 on the next 9 and calm the waters, but another 3-6 stretch is bad news.

And please keep in mind that they have 3 wins against teams in the bottom fourth of the league, 2 of which were at home, all of which were close, and one of which required double OT. Meanwhile one of the other bottom fourth teams, a team Stein just moved down 10 spots in the power rankings, dusted them by 30 most of the night. Do you realize what things are going to look like if they are playing like this when the schedule turns?

I love the team and obviously will never stop supporting them. Gnome and I are headed to the Bay area for a couple of games. I'd like to see Frank figure it out and prove himself, not just because I'd see better ball but because he and the team would get the reward of success that I'd like them to have. But...if Frank fell off a building I'd be saying "if he doesn't grow wings and turn this around he's in big trouble" because that would be the unfortunate reality of it.

Granger is great and I hate how underrated he seems at PD sometimes, but he's not the primary issue.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I agree. Granger wouldn't solve any of the poor drive and dish offense because that's not his skill. And last year Danny spent the first month or so shooting absolutely terrible and the team still won games with a road loaded schedule.

Granger is not Derrick Rose, and the Pacers aren't playing as well as the Bulls did/are without Rose.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

The issue with the Pacers is offense. The issue with the offense is lack of a solid and consistent perimeter threat...something that spreads the floor and gives the bigs more room to operate and pass. It gives all the guys more room to operate. As it is, you see an offense that looks bad because the spacing is bad...and the spacing is bad because we lack good shooting. Granger was the best. Quite frankly, Collison was also a loss that is being felt.

Granger is also a guy who you can rely on for 18PPG every time (at least) and sometimes 30. We can't even rely on West for that. It bumps our points up to 100+ and allows other guys better and more open looks...facing weaker defenders.

Edit: Instead of Granger stretching the flloor, we have people like Lance, West and Hibbert packing the lane....with an inconsistent Paul George shooting and Hill trying to run an offense where most of the guys are playing 12 feet from the basket. The idea is inside-out...and side to side passing. We have gone a bit too far the other direction from the three point shooting spectacle we were a couple years ago.

Our 3% is 29.9%...5th worst in the league. It's hard to play 5 on 5 in a 12 foot square and expect the offense to look fluid.

The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I agree that Granger spacing would help, but the fact is they would still run the low post stuff with someone running through the baseline for the potential Roy pass and they would still struggle to slowly feed Roy while he struggles to hold position or do something with the position. They would also still drive off the high post pick that results in awkward "nowhere to go" traps as they get toward the low block.

This isn't a team that has some guy just missing 6 3PAs that Danny would be hitting. This is a team that can't get ANYONE a clean look. For chrissake West was just bullying away 2-3 guys to hit some of the most "no way in hell is that dude open" shots you could imagine. Lance and now Hill just freelance or speed-force into some makes when they can. And that's the whole offense, that's the pinnacle.

I mean unlike Vnzla I actually like Granger and can't wait till he returns, but that guy is not riding in on a white horse to solve all these offensive issues by himself.

He's going to be more like one dude with a bucket of water running into the middle of a forest fire when he returns.

BTW, while I don't dislike "dribble creators" ala Mayo, I prefer the balanced "each man with a role running a plan" style that Pop, Sloan or Carlisle present. Frank hasn't figured out how to implement his vision, meaning I believe in his intentions but I think he's getting a lesson in how what you think will work doesn't always pan out that way. Maybe he'll find it yet. If so it will be a great story.

The Following User Says Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I mean unlike Vnzla I actually like Granger and can't wait till he returns, but that guy is not riding in on a white horse to solve all these offensive issues by himself.

Yes I hate him so much that I was saying that Green or Young were not going to replace his production, I'm not the one that said that "Green was going to be just fine" and stop stealing my lines I'm the one mentioning Danny riding in a white horse to save the Pacers.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I agree Grangers ability to space the floor would be a big addition, but I feel like where it screws us up most, is the comfort level with the young guys. Now PG is option 1A on the perimeter, and that's just not him. David West needs to do way more, as does Roy. And our offense really isn't designed for guys to be able to "step up". It is more of a read & react type of system. So teams now can turn their attention to those guys, who are already stretched beyond their limits, and it makes it tough. Now we are trying to beat teams with guys like Gerald Green and Lance instead of a more seasoned player like Danny.

Plus B&G made a great point about Lance entering the lineup. Not only are guys not use to playing with him yet, it causes the opposing team to pack the paint. And no one is making them pay for it.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I didn't except the Danny excuse at first, but started to think about some numbers.

Danny in his worst starting season averaged 13.9 ppg.

The 6 games we lost by and average of 8 ppg.

Exclude the Spurs game, and we only lost by an average of 3.2 ppg.

Im not saying stats are all showing, but it does seem a bit (for lack of a better word) convenient that the same team that was the 3rd best in the east, and 5th best in the league last season under the same coaching staff. Now cant even beat low level teams. Just saying it's something to consider.

If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I didn't except the Danny excuse at first, but started to think about some numbers.

Danny in his worst starting season averaged 13.9 ppg.

The 6 games we lost by and average of 8 ppg.

Exclude the Spurs game, and we only lost by an average of 3.2 ppg.

Im not saying stats are all showing, but it does seem a bit (for lack of a better word) convenient that the same team that was the 3rd best in the east, and 5th best in the league last season under the same coaching staff. Now cant even beat low level teams. Just saying it's something to consider.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

Like I said, it's not a tell all tale for sure, but it does give a glimpse into how much better we are with Danny. I think we could easily be 7-2 with him in the lineup.

I know many people think Dannys not that great, and maybe for the most part he isnt. I do however think that he is very important to OUR team. I mean ppg aside. He also is a huge upgrade in many other areas compared to Lance/Green/Young.

Last edited by LetsTalkPacers84; 11-16-2012 at 04:36 PM.

If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

Which one other that the Milwaukee game? He's already discounting the SA blowout.

SA was a blowout, Milkaukee was a blowout, Toronto's last game was pretty much a blowout until they ran out of gas, out of 9 games I think they have let the other team be up by a huge marging for at least 4 or 5 games.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

SA was a blowout, Milkaukee was a blowout, Toronto's last game was pretty much a blowout until they ran out of gas, out of 9 games I think they have let the other team be up by a huge marging for at least 4 or 5 games.

Right, I still think we lose to SA, and MIL. The Toronto game, no. Charlotte, no. Atlanta, no. Minnesota, no.

Which would make us 7-2 instead of 3-6, and no one is complaining...well too much anyhow

If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

SA was a blowout, Milkaukee was a blowout, Toronto's last game was pretty much a blowout until they ran out of gas, out of 9 games I think they have let the other team be up by a huge margin for at least 4 or 5 games.

So we're redefining garbage time as coming back to within a shot of tying or winning after the other team was up by a huge margin? Come on, that's stretching it. We all know what garbage time is, and seldom do games end in 2-3 point margins because of it.

Pacers up by huge margin at one point but only win by a couple - shows how bad the Pacers are because they couldn't hold a big lead.
Other team up by a huge margin at one point but only win by a couple - shows how bad the Pacers are because the final margin was only due to garbage time.

So, basically, the only way the Pacers can show they've turned any corner is by winning by whatever the largest margin they led by (which has to be more than one or two shots)?

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

"Devastated just talking about it?" Last I checked this wasn't a funeral. I wonder where they picked up those down-in-the-dumps hyperbole filled excuses from? Oh right, the coach who says the same thing and says we've had a tough schedule so far.

Vogel has been horrible. Granger is not Lebron, and we've lost --under Vogel-- to teams who have lost better players to injury. Minnesota is not making lame excuses.

Absolving him of blame means we're going to see those same three plays run over and over again. And why change them? It's not his fault. Opponents are telling each other the plays, happy at their luck to play the Pacers and their backwards offense. That's not his fault. Adjustments aren't being made, but that's not his fault. Well, if that's the case, what is the job of the coach again? What are Vogel's responsibilities?

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

I didn't except the Danny excuse at first, but started to think about some numbers.

Danny in his worst starting season averaged 13.9 ppg.

The 6 games we lost by and average of 8 ppg.

Exclude the Spurs game, and we only lost by an average of 3.2 ppg.

Im not saying stats are all showing, but it does seem a bit (for lack of a better word) convenient that the same team that was the 3rd best in the east, and 5th best in the league last season under the same coaching staff. Now cant even beat low level teams. Just saying it's something to consider.

Granger shot 38% (overall) before the All Star Break last season. He wasn't carrying the team: they were carrying him. He was putting up Gerald Green percentages, but Green is the whipping boy now. The only thing that seems convenient is the built-in excuse of our invincible hero not being here. You want Granger's production on the team? Tell Gerald Green to shoot more. If he took the same number of FGA as Granger did at this time last year, he would give you about the same "production" in his current slump.

But I'm sure Danny's "presence" or "confidence" or some other such nonsense is the difference now.

Re: Just a little perspective on the effect of losing Granger

Granger shot 38% (overall) before the All Star Break last season. He wasn't carrying the team: they were carrying him. He was putting up Gerald Green percentages, but Green is the whipping boy now. The only thing that seems convenient is the built-in excuse of our invincible hero not being here. You want Granger's production on the team? Tell Gerald Green to shoot more. If he took the same number of FGA as Granger did at this time last year, he would give you about the same "production" in his current slump.

But I'm sure Danny's "presence" or "confidence" or some other such nonsense is the difference now.

As soon as Gerald demands other teams to plan their defense to stop him, and he plays half the defense Dannys did/does. Then I'll except your comparison. Also Danny is a leader, Gerald is not. Gerald was in the d-league a season ago, Danny was our leading scorer a year ago.

If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?